STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.
ARTHUR T. MOTT, DRO DOCKET NO.
PETITIONER TENANT: RICHARD HAFFNER
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 7, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for
admin-istrative review of an order issued on April 28, 1987 by a
Dis-rict Rent Administrator concerning housing accommodations
known as 31 Brewster Street, Apartment 129, Glen Cove, New York,
wherein the Administrator determined that an overcharge had
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record
con-cerning the issues raised in the petition for review.
This proceeding was commenced on February 10, 1984 upon the
filing of an overcharge complaint by the tenant under Docket No.
GCTC 83-47. The tenant questioned, among other things, the
validity of his rent, his monthly garage fee and electrical
The owner, in his answer, asserted that no overcharges occurred
and submitted copies of the leases of the current tenant and a
copy of the lease of the tenant immediately prior to the cur-rent
On December 13, 1984, the owner was requested to submit addi-
tional evidence. The Administrator explained that information
that the owner had submitted to the DHCR in a previous, inde-
pendent matter contradicted some of the evidence submitted by the
owner in this case. This factual discrepancy questioned whether
the prior tenant's rent charge included a garage fee.
In the order issued March 7, 1985 under Docket No. GCTC 83-47,
the Administrator found that the owner had not responded to the
request for further evidence and made his determination that a
rent overcharge had occurred. In that order, the lawful
sta-bililation rent was established at $556.29 from May 1, 1984
through April 30, 1985 and the owner was directed to refund
$3,635.06 in overcharges through March 31, 1985.
The owner filed a petition for administrative review of that
order (GCTC 83-47). On December 29, 1986, the Commissioner
issued a finding in the administrative appeal under
Adminis-trative Review Docket No. ARL 02446-N. The
Commissioner's order and opinion remanded the proceeding for
further processing. It was noted in this order and opinion that:
1.The owner had submitted evidence to explain
2.The owner had not been served nor did the
record contain a copy of the document which
the Administrator relied on as constituting
3.The electrical surcharge was not correctly
The Commissioner requested that the Administrator, with adequate
written notice to all parties and their attorneys to insure due
process, correct the errors above and further process the
In the instant case under Docket No. GBA 7-1-0007 RP, the
Admin-istrator sent notice to the parties on January 12, 1987
advising them of the continued processing of the case. The
notice stated that the Administrator was recognizing the evidence
previously submitted to explain the discrepancy and was serving
the parties with the document which showed the garage was
included in the prior tenant's rent. The parties were given an
opportunity to comment and to submit any additional evidence.
The owner interposed an answer stating in substance that no
over-charges occurred. He again alleged, among other things,
that the prior tenant had no garage.
In the order here under review (GBA 7-1-0007-RP) issued on April
28, 1987, the Administrator established that the lawful stabili-
zation rent was $583.24 as of May 1, 1985 and directed the owner
to refund to the tenant $3,691.53 in overcharges through April
30, 1985. Because the tenant had vacated the subject apartment
after May 1, 1985, the owner was further directed to refund all
rents collected in excess of $583.24 per month after May 1, 1985.
In his petition for administrative review the owner requests that
the Administrator's order be revoked. He simply states that the
Administrator failed to comply with the Commissioner's remand
order under Docket No. ARL 02446-N.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly and
carefully complied with each and every direction in the Commis-
sioner's remand order. At no point was the Administrator
directed as to what weight to give to the evidence submitted or
how much probative value the submitted evidence contained. The
Administrator was instructed to and scrupulously did insure that
due process rights were protected, and he examined all the evi-
dence in the record. Accordingly, the Administrator's order must
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act and
the Tenant Protection Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that if the owner has not complied with the Rent
Administrator's order upon the expiration of the period for
seeking judicial review of this order pursuant to Article 78 of
the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the tenant, who has vacated the
subject premises, may file and enforce a certified copy of this
order as a judgment in the amount of $3,691.53.